The impact of the Dobbs decision on in-vitro fertilization and fertility care

Ulker, Ashley; Evans, M Blake; Craig, LaTasha B.

doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000888

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the restrictions enabled by the Dobbs decision extend to other forms of reproductive, sexual, and genderaffirming healthcare including contraception, hormone therapy, fertility treatments, and prenatal care. 8 As the legal complexity surrounding women's and gender affirming healthcare thickens, it is riskier for medical professionals to provide care, leading to less access overall.…”

Section: P a P E Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatializing Reproductive Justice

Roberts,

Harkema,

Brown

2024

112th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Disruptors on the Edge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coined in 1994 by a caucus of Black women activists, reproductive justice is the “human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities”.1 After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, access to reproductive healthcare is radically restricted across the U.S., compounding systemic race, gender, and class-based inequities that have always made healthcare inaccessible for many. The landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 rolled back nearly 50 years of reproductive rights protections and unleashed a plethora of laws that make it more difficult to access reproductive health care, riskier to assist those seeking care, and precarious to teach about issues of race, gender, and sexuality. As stated in the dissenting opinion by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, “Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.”2 In the U.S. today, bodily autonomy and academic freedom are geographically situated. Within this context of curtailed freedoms, architects and educators must confront the spatial realities of these restrictions. New dialogues must emerge at architecture’s intersectional edges – between designers, activists, social justice advocates, legal experts, public health practitioners, and students – to explore how the built environment can better support human lives.

show abstract

Section: P a P E Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatializing Reproductive Justice

Roberts,

Harkema,

Brown

2024

112th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Disruptors on the Edge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether IVF embryos are rights-bearing entities is heavily debated and is even more fraught since the Dobbs decision in 2022. 101 Thus disposition of affected embryos, including whether it is ethically permissible to donate them for research, is disputed without clear consensus. [102][103][104] Children conceived through ART may confront health challenges associated with the risks of this technology, such as an elevated likelihood of IVF pregnancies resulting in multiples, which poses risks to both mother and each fetus.…”

Section: Pgt-m Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

State of the Science and Ethical Considerations for Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Monogenic Cystic Kidney Diseases and Ciliopathies

Thompson,

Babayev,

McGowan

et al. 2023

JASN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a broad phenotypic spectrum of monogenic polycystic kidney diseases (PKD). These disorders often involve cilia-related genes and lead to the development of fluid-filled cysts and eventual kidney function decline and failure. Preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M) has moved into the clinical realm. It allows prospective parents to avoid passing on heritable diseases to their children, including monogenic PKD. The PGT-M process involves embryo generation via in vitro fertilization, with subsequent testing of embryos and selective transfer of those that do not harbor the specific disease-causing variant(s). There is a growing body of literature supporting the success of PGT-M for autosomal dominant and autosomal recessive PKD, although with important technical limitations in some cases. This technology can be applied to many other types of monogenic PKD and ciliopathies despite the lack of existing reports in the literature. PGT-M for monogenic PKD, like other forms of assisted reproductive technology, raises important ethical questions. When considering PGT-M for kidney diseases, as well as the potential to avoid disease in future generations, there are regulatory and ethical considerations. These include minimal government regulation and unstandardized consent processes, potential technical errors, high cost and equity concerns, risks associated with pregnancy for mothers with kidney disease, and the impact on all involved in the process, including the children made possible with this technology.

show abstract

The impact of the Dobbs decision on in-vitro fertilization and fertility care

Cited by 2 publications

References 9 publications

Spatializing Reproductive Justice

Spatializing Reproductive Justice

State of the Science and Ethical Considerations for Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Monogenic Cystic Kidney Diseases and Ciliopathies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About